MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407099474 · doi:10.3390/plants14030439

Global Dynamics of Grassland FVC and LST and Spatial Distribution of Their Correlation (2001–2022)

2025· article· en· W4407099474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhenggong Miao, Ji Chen, Chuanglu Wang, Shouhong Zhang, Yuxuan Ma, Tianchun Dong, Yaojun Zhao, Rui Shi, Jingyi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsPlateau (mathematics)Subarctic climateGeographyAridClimatologyPhysical geographyGrasslandSpatial distributionAltitude (triangle)Environmental scienceEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractional Vegetation Cover (FVC) and Land Surface Temperature (LST) are critical indicators for assessing grassland ecosystems. Based on global remote sensing data for FVC and LST from 2001 to 2022, this study employs the Mann-Kendall trend test and Spearman correlation analysis to explore the dynamic changes in and spatial distribution patterns of both variables. The results indicate that the FVC is increasing in regions such as Europe, the eastern southern Sahara, western India, eastern South America, western and southern North America, and central China. However, it is decreasing in southern Canada, the central United States, and northern Australia. Significant increases in LST are observed in subarctic regions and the Tibetan Plateau, attributed to polar warming effects associated with global climate change. Conversely, the LST is decreasing in central China, eastern coastal Australia, and southern Africa. The global FVC-LST relationship exhibits the following four distinct spatial distribution patterns: (1) FVC increase and LST increase (Type 1), (2) FVC increase and LST decrease (Type 2), (3) FVC decrease and LST increase (Type 3), and (4) FVC decrease and LST decrease (Type 4). Type 1, covering 33.72%, is primarily found in high-latitude and high-altitude areas, such as subarctic regions and the Tibetan Plateau. Type 2, the largest group (46.98%), is mainly located in eastern North America, eastern South America, and southern Africa. Type 3, which comprises 18.72%, is concentrated in arid and semi-arid regions, while Type 4, representing only 0.59%, lacks clear spatial distribution patterns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207